On Mon Aug 25 2025, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote: >> Also I couldn't really see a performance degradation with ntpperf. > > I was testing with an I350, not I210. Could that make a difference?
Jup, it could make a difference. > >> In my >> tests the IRQ variant reached an equal or higher rate. But sometimes I >> get 'Could not send requests at rate X'. No idea what that means. > > That's ntpperf giving up as the HW is too slow to send requests at > that rate (with a single process calling sendmmsg() in a loop). You > can add the -l option to force ntpperf to continue, but the printed > rate values will no longer be accurate, you would need to measure it > by some other way, e.g. by monitoring the interface packet counters. I see. Thanks, Kurt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
